The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him. This is just the way of it! Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?

By the way, the proposed "Articles of Brest" were never signed by the Pope or any official of the Roman Catholic Church.So they are just that "proposed". What created the Ruthenian Catholic Church was an act of submission to the Pope and a declaration signed by the Pope not the "Articles of Brest".

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him. This is just the way of it! Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?

By the way, the proposed "Articles of Brest" were never signed by the Pope or any official of the Roman Catholic Church.So they are just that "proposed". What created the Ruthenian Catholic Church was an act of submission to the Pope and a declaration signed by the Pope not the "Articles of Brest".

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum? Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth? Do this with them and see how far you get.

The problem is that actually both you and Irish Hermit are correct. And this results in yet another instance where Eastern sui juris churches don't really respect the dogmatic tradition that they are supposed to be bound to.

Many eastern Catholic priests from all the jurisdictions have gone well out of their way to move against the westernizing tide and reintroduce traditional liturgies during the early-middle and middle centuries of the 20th century. My spiritual father was one of them and it took a good deal of persistence and willingness to struggle with his own brother clergy and with some of his flock as well. So when the man from NZ by gross generalization tells me that Father is just another toadie...I feel compelled to correct.

I wasn't really commenting on that personal situation. There is no criticism of you on that level.

What I was commenting on was the general issue of submission to Rome. With regards to that, a good amount of those of the Eastern rites today appear to be questioning the dogma of papal supremacy.

They are not questioning the dogma. They are challenging the jurisdictional rights and privileges of the Vatican Curia to interfere in their local jurisdictions and in the lives of those Churches Rome has truly and clearly delineated as Sister Churches during John Paul II's ponitficate. It is a legitimate scuffle.

They don't have much to worry about with Pope St. Benedict but they DO have a long row to hoe with some of the members of the Curial secretariats.

If I might be so bold as to say these things without finding some citation to support them. If not then I'll withdraw.

2. The celebrations commemorating the Union of Brest must be seen in the context of the Millennium of the Baptism of the Rus'. Seven years ago, in 1988, that event was celebrated with great solemnity. For the occasion I published two documents: the Apostolic Letter Euntes in mundum of 25 January 1988,5 for the whole Church, and the Message Magnum Baptismi donum, of 14 February of the same year,6 addressed to Ukrainian Catholics. It was an occasion for celebrating a moment of fundamental importance for the Christian and cultural identity of those peoples, a moment of unique significance, since at that time the Churches of the Byzantine tradition and the Church of Rome were still living in full communion.

After the division which damaged the unity between the West and the Byzantine East, frequent and intense efforts were made to restore full communion. I wish to mention two particularly significant events: the Second Council of Lyons in 1274, and above all the Council of Florence in 1439, when protocols of union with the Eastern Churches were signed. Unfortunately, various causes prevented the promise and potential of those agreements from being realized.

The Bishops of the Metropolia of Kiev, in restoring communion with Rome, made explicit reference to the decisions of the Council of Florence, a Council which had numbered among its participants representatives from the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

In this context, the figure of Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev stands out. As a faithful interpreter and defender of the decisions of that Council, he had to endure exile for his convictions.

The Bishops who promoted the union and the members of their Church retained a lively awareness of their original close ties to their Orthodox brethren, together with a full consciousness of the Oriental identity of their Metropolia, an identity which was also to be upheld after the union. In the history of the Catholic Church, it is a highly significant fact that this just desire was respected and that the act of union did not involve passing over to the Latin tradition, as some thought would happen. Their Church saw an acknowledgment of its right to be governed by its own hierarchy with a specific discipline and to maintain its Eastern liturgical and spiritual heritage.

Between persecutionand growth

3. After the union, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church enjoyed a period in which its ecclesiastical structures flourished, with resulting benefits for religious life, the education of the clergy and the spiritual commitment of the faithful. With remarkable farsightedness, great importance was attached to education. Thanks to the valuable contribution of the Basilian Order and other Religious Congregations, there was a great growth in the study of the sacred sciences and the nation's culture. In the present century, a figure of extraordinary prestige, in this regard as well as in his witness of suffering borne for Christ, was Metropolitan Andrii Sheptyckyi, whose education and fine spiritual qualities were combined with outstanding organizational gifts. He founded schools and academies, supported theological studies and the human sciences, the press and sacred art, and sought to preserve historical memories.

And yet, all this ecclesial vitality was continually marked by the tragedy of misunderstanding and opposition. An illustrious victim in this regard was the Archbishop of Polock and Vitebsk, Josaphat Kuntsevych, whose martyrdom merited the unfading crown of eternal glory. His body now lies in the Vatican Basilica, where it is continuously venerated with devotion and gratitude by Catholics from throughout the world.

The difficulties and trials continued unabated. Pope Pius XII recalled them in the Encyclical Letter Orientales omnes. After describing the earlier persecutions, he predicted the tragic persecution which would take place under the atheistic regime.7

Outstanding among the heroic witnesses to the rights not only of the faith but also of human conscience in those difficult years is the figure of Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj: his courage in enduring exile and prison for 18 years and his indomitable confidence in the resurrection of his Church make him one of the most powerful figures among the confessors of the faith in our time. Nor should his many companions in punishment be forgotten, particularly Bishops Hryhory Khomyshyn and Josaphat Kocylowskyj.

These tempestuous events shook the Church in the homeland to its roots. But Divine Providence had already begun to make it possible for many of its members to find a way of escape for themselves and their people. From the beginning of the 19th century onwards, great waves of emigrants began to cross the ocean, settling above all in Canada, the United States of America, Brazil, Argentina and Australia. The Holy See took care to be close to them, by providing assistance and establishing pastoral structures for them in their new homes, including the establishment of their own Eparchies. At the time of trial, during the atheistic persecution in their native land, the voice of these believers could thus be raised, in full freedom, with strength and courage. In the international forum they defended the right of their persecuted brethren to religious freedom, and thus strengthened the Second Vatican Council's appeal for religious freedom,8 and the efforts made in this regard by the Holy See.

4. The whole Catholic Community recalls with deep emotion the victims of such great suffering: the martyrs and confessors of the faith of the Church in Ukraine offer us a magnificent lesson in fidelity even at the price of life itself. And we, the favoured witnesses of their sacrifice, are aware that they helped to maintain the dignity of a world which seemed overwhelmed by atrocities. They knew the truth, and the truth set them free. Christians in Europe and throughout the world, pausing in prayer before the concentration camps and prisons, should be grateful for the light which they gave: it was the light of Christ, which they caused to shine in the darkness. For long years the darkness seemed in the eyes of the world to prevail, but it was not able to extinguish that light, which was the light of God and the light of man, wounded but not laid low.

This inheritance of suffering and glory today stands at a historic crossroads: now that the chains of imprisonment have been broken, the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine has begun again to breathe in freedom and to regain fully its own active role in the Church and in history. This task, difficult yet providential, today calls for particular reflection, that it may be carried out with wisdom and farsightedness.

2. The celebrations commemorating the Union of Brest must be seen in the context of the Millennium of the Baptism of the Rus'. Seven years ago, in 1988, that event was celebrated with great solemnity. For the occasion I published two documents: the Apostolic Letter Euntes in mundum of 25 January 1988,5 for the whole Church, and the Message Magnum Baptismi donum, of 14 February of the same year,6 addressed to Ukrainian Catholics. It was an occasion for celebrating a moment of fundamental importance for the Christian and cultural identity of those peoples, a moment of unique significance, since at that time the Churches of the Byzantine tradition and the Church of Rome were still living in full communion.

After the division which damaged the unity between the West and the Byzantine East, frequent and intense efforts were made to restore full communion. I wish to mention two particularly significant events: the Second Council of Lyons in 1274, and above all the Council of Florence in 1439, when protocols of union with the Eastern Churches were signed. Unfortunately, various causes prevented the promise and potential of those agreements from being realized.

The Bishops of the Metropolia of Kiev, in restoring communion with Rome, made explicit reference to the decisions of the Council of Florence, a Council which had numbered among its participants representatives from the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

In this context, the figure of Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev stands out. As a faithful interpreter and defender of the decisions of that Council, he had to endure exile for his convictions.

The Bishops who promoted the union and the members of their Church retained a lively awareness of their original close ties to their Orthodox brethren, together with a full consciousness of the Oriental identity of their Metropolia, an identity which was also to be upheld after the union. In the history of the Catholic Church, it is a highly significant fact that this just desire was respected and that the act of union did not involve passing over to the Latin tradition, as some thought would happen. Their Church saw an acknowledgment of its right to be governed by its own hierarchy with a specific discipline and to maintain its Eastern liturgical and spiritual heritage.

Between persecutionand growth

3. After the union, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church enjoyed a period in which its ecclesiastical structures flourished, with resulting benefits for religious life, the education of the clergy and the spiritual commitment of the faithful. With remarkable farsightedness, great importance was attached to education. Thanks to the valuable contribution of the Basilian Order and other Religious Congregations, there was a great growth in the study of the sacred sciences and the nation's culture. In the present century, a figure of extraordinary prestige, in this regard as well as in his witness of suffering borne for Christ, was Metropolitan Andrii Sheptyckyi, whose education and fine spiritual qualities were combined with outstanding organizational gifts. He founded schools and academies, supported theological studies and the human sciences, the press and sacred art, and sought to preserve historical memories.

And yet, all this ecclesial vitality was continually marked by the tragedy of misunderstanding and opposition. An illustrious victim in this regard was the Archbishop of Polock and Vitebsk, Josaphat Kuntsevych, whose martyrdom merited the unfading crown of eternal glory. His body now lies in the Vatican Basilica, where it is continuously venerated with devotion and gratitude by Catholics from throughout the world.

The difficulties and trials continued unabated. Pope Pius XII recalled them in the Encyclical Letter Orientales omnes. After describing the earlier persecutions, he predicted the tragic persecution which would take place under the atheistic regime.7

Outstanding among the heroic witnesses to the rights not only of the faith but also of human conscience in those difficult years is the figure of Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj: his courage in enduring exile and prison for 18 years and his indomitable confidence in the resurrection of his Church make him one of the most powerful figures among the confessors of the faith in our time. Nor should his many companions in punishment be forgotten, particularly Bishops Hryhory Khomyshyn and Josaphat Kocylowskyj.

These tempestuous events shook the Church in the homeland to its roots. But Divine Providence had already begun to make it possible for many of its members to find a way of escape for themselves and their people. From the beginning of the 19th century onwards, great waves of emigrants began to cross the ocean, settling above all in Canada, the United States of America, Brazil, Argentina and Australia. The Holy See took care to be close to them, by providing assistance and establishing pastoral structures for them in their new homes, including the establishment of their own Eparchies. At the time of trial, during the atheistic persecution in their native land, the voice of these believers could thus be raised, in full freedom, with strength and courage. In the international forum they defended the right of their persecuted brethren to religious freedom, and thus strengthened the Second Vatican Council's appeal for religious freedom,8 and the efforts made in this regard by the Holy See.

4. The whole Catholic Community recalls with deep emotion the victims of such great suffering: the martyrs and confessors of the faith of the Church in Ukraine offer us a magnificent lesson in fidelity even at the price of life itself. And we, the favoured witnesses of their sacrifice, are aware that they helped to maintain the dignity of a world which seemed overwhelmed by atrocities. They knew the truth, and the truth set them free. Christians in Europe and throughout the world, pausing in prayer before the concentration camps and prisons, should be grateful for the light which they gave: it was the light of Christ, which they caused to shine in the darkness. For long years the darkness seemed in the eyes of the world to prevail, but it was not able to extinguish that light, which was the light of God and the light of man, wounded but not laid low.

This inheritance of suffering and glory today stands at a historic crossroads: now that the chains of imprisonment have been broken, the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine has begun again to breathe in freedom and to regain fully its own active role in the Church and in history. This task, difficult yet providential, today calls for particular reflection, that it may be carried out with wisdom and farsightedness.

As per usual, not a whisper about the emperors dragging the bishops to Lyons and Florence to force them to sign "unions" in exchange for military aid (the Vatican has selective condemnation of Caesaropapism).

Interesting about the reference to the Baptism of Rus': not a reference to the fact that the envoys in the history go to the Latins, and rejected them.

Praising people like Isodore of Kiev, like Kuntsevich, and they wonder why we don't trust them. Not a peep about the forced Latinization in the New World (which, e.g. married priests, continues) and they wonder why we do not trust them. No acknowledgement of the force used to consumate the "union," and they wonder why we do not trust them.

« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 09:58:07 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

2. The celebrations commemorating the Union of Brest must be seen in the context of the Millennium of the Baptism of the Rus'. Seven years ago, in 1988, that event was celebrated with great solemnity. For the occasion I published two documents: the Apostolic Letter Euntes in mundum of 25 January 1988,5 for the whole Church, and the Message Magnum Baptismi donum, of 14 February of the same year,6 addressed to Ukrainian Catholics. It was an occasion for celebrating a moment of fundamental importance for the Christian and cultural identity of those peoples, a moment of unique significance, since at that time the Churches of the Byzantine tradition and the Church of Rome were still living in full communion.

After the division which damaged the unity between the West and the Byzantine East, frequent and intense efforts were made to restore full communion. I wish to mention two particularly significant events: the Second Council of Lyons in 1274, and above all the Council of Florence in 1439, when protocols of union with the Eastern Churches were signed. Unfortunately, various causes prevented the promise and potential of those agreements from being realized.

The Bishops of the Metropolia of Kiev, in restoring communion with Rome, made explicit reference to the decisions of the Council of Florence, a Council which had numbered among its participants representatives from the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

In this context, the figure of Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev stands out. As a faithful interpreter and defender of the decisions of that Council, he had to endure exile for his convictions.

The Bishops who promoted the union and the members of their Church retained a lively awareness of their original close ties to their Orthodox brethren, together with a full consciousness of the Oriental identity of their Metropolia, an identity which was also to be upheld after the union. In the history of the Catholic Church, it is a highly significant fact that this just desire was respected and that the act of union did not involve passing over to the Latin tradition, as some thought would happen. Their Church saw an acknowledgment of its right to be governed by its own hierarchy with a specific discipline and to maintain its Eastern liturgical and spiritual heritage.

Between persecutionand growth

3. After the union, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church enjoyed a period in which its ecclesiastical structures flourished, with resulting benefits for religious life, the education of the clergy and the spiritual commitment of the faithful. With remarkable farsightedness, great importance was attached to education. Thanks to the valuable contribution of the Basilian Order and other Religious Congregations, there was a great growth in the study of the sacred sciences and the nation's culture. In the present century, a figure of extraordinary prestige, in this regard as well as in his witness of suffering borne for Christ, was Metropolitan Andrii Sheptyckyi, whose education and fine spiritual qualities were combined with outstanding organizational gifts. He founded schools and academies, supported theological studies and the human sciences, the press and sacred art, and sought to preserve historical memories.

And yet, all this ecclesial vitality was continually marked by the tragedy of misunderstanding and opposition. An illustrious victim in this regard was the Archbishop of Polock and Vitebsk, Josaphat Kuntsevych, whose martyrdom merited the unfading crown of eternal glory. His body now lies in the Vatican Basilica, where it is continuously venerated with devotion and gratitude by Catholics from throughout the world.

The difficulties and trials continued unabated. Pope Pius XII recalled them in the Encyclical Letter Orientales omnes. After describing the earlier persecutions, he predicted the tragic persecution which would take place under the atheistic regime.7

Outstanding among the heroic witnesses to the rights not only of the faith but also of human conscience in those difficult years is the figure of Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj: his courage in enduring exile and prison for 18 years and his indomitable confidence in the resurrection of his Church make him one of the most powerful figures among the confessors of the faith in our time. Nor should his many companions in punishment be forgotten, particularly Bishops Hryhory Khomyshyn and Josaphat Kocylowskyj.

These tempestuous events shook the Church in the homeland to its roots. But Divine Providence had already begun to make it possible for many of its members to find a way of escape for themselves and their people. From the beginning of the 19th century onwards, great waves of emigrants began to cross the ocean, settling above all in Canada, the United States of America, Brazil, Argentina and Australia. The Holy See took care to be close to them, by providing assistance and establishing pastoral structures for them in their new homes, including the establishment of their own Eparchies. At the time of trial, during the atheistic persecution in their native land, the voice of these believers could thus be raised, in full freedom, with strength and courage. In the international forum they defended the right of their persecuted brethren to religious freedom, and thus strengthened the Second Vatican Council's appeal for religious freedom,8 and the efforts made in this regard by the Holy See.

4. The whole Catholic Community recalls with deep emotion the victims of such great suffering: the martyrs and confessors of the faith of the Church in Ukraine offer us a magnificent lesson in fidelity even at the price of life itself. And we, the favoured witnesses of their sacrifice, are aware that they helped to maintain the dignity of a world which seemed overwhelmed by atrocities. They knew the truth, and the truth set them free. Christians in Europe and throughout the world, pausing in prayer before the concentration camps and prisons, should be grateful for the light which they gave: it was the light of Christ, which they caused to shine in the darkness. For long years the darkness seemed in the eyes of the world to prevail, but it was not able to extinguish that light, which was the light of God and the light of man, wounded but not laid low.

This inheritance of suffering and glory today stands at a historic crossroads: now that the chains of imprisonment have been broken, the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine has begun again to breathe in freedom and to regain fully its own active role in the Church and in history. This task, difficult yet providential, today calls for particular reflection, that it may be carried out with wisdom and farsightedness.

As per usual, not a whisper about the emperors dragging the bishops to Lyons and Florence to force them to sign "unions" in exchange for military aid (the Vatican has selective condemnation of Caesaropapism).

Interesting about the reference to the Baptism of Rus': not a reference to the fact that the envoys in the history go to the Latins, and rejected them.

Praising people like Isodore of Kiev, like Kuntsevich, and they wonder why we don't trust them. Not a peep about the forced Latinization in the New World (which, e.g. married priests, continues) and they wonder why we do not trust them. No acknowledgement of the force used to consumate the "union," and they wonder why we do not trust them.

When you get to a point where you can cope with the fact that anti-unionists are no more pleasant and peace lovin' to deal with than unionists the closer to the truth you'll come. There is a record of the anti-unionist activities after Florence in Greece and up through the Balkins and it is not anything I would want to brag about. And that history comes out of secular sources as well as ecclesiastical ones.

2. The celebrations commemorating the Union of Brest must be seen in the context of the Millennium of the Baptism of the Rus'. Seven years ago, in 1988, that event was celebrated with great solemnity. For the occasion I published two documents: the Apostolic Letter Euntes in mundum of 25 January 1988,5 for the whole Church, and the Message Magnum Baptismi donum, of 14 February of the same year,6 addressed to Ukrainian Catholics. It was an occasion for celebrating a moment of fundamental importance for the Christian and cultural identity of those peoples, a moment of unique significance, since at that time the Churches of the Byzantine tradition and the Church of Rome were still living in full communion.

After the division which damaged the unity between the West and the Byzantine East, frequent and intense efforts were made to restore full communion. I wish to mention two particularly significant events: the Second Council of Lyons in 1274, and above all the Council of Florence in 1439, when protocols of union with the Eastern Churches were signed. Unfortunately, various causes prevented the promise and potential of those agreements from being realized.

The Bishops of the Metropolia of Kiev, in restoring communion with Rome, made explicit reference to the decisions of the Council of Florence, a Council which had numbered among its participants representatives from the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

In this context, the figure of Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev stands out. As a faithful interpreter and defender of the decisions of that Council, he had to endure exile for his convictions.

The Bishops who promoted the union and the members of their Church retained a lively awareness of their original close ties to their Orthodox brethren, together with a full consciousness of the Oriental identity of their Metropolia, an identity which was also to be upheld after the union. In the history of the Catholic Church, it is a highly significant fact that this just desire was respected and that the act of union did not involve passing over to the Latin tradition, as some thought would happen. Their Church saw an acknowledgment of its right to be governed by its own hierarchy with a specific discipline and to maintain its Eastern liturgical and spiritual heritage.

Between persecutionand growth

3. After the union, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church enjoyed a period in which its ecclesiastical structures flourished, with resulting benefits for religious life, the education of the clergy and the spiritual commitment of the faithful. With remarkable farsightedness, great importance was attached to education. Thanks to the valuable contribution of the Basilian Order and other Religious Congregations, there was a great growth in the study of the sacred sciences and the nation's culture. In the present century, a figure of extraordinary prestige, in this regard as well as in his witness of suffering borne for Christ, was Metropolitan Andrii Sheptyckyi, whose education and fine spiritual qualities were combined with outstanding organizational gifts. He founded schools and academies, supported theological studies and the human sciences, the press and sacred art, and sought to preserve historical memories.

And yet, all this ecclesial vitality was continually marked by the tragedy of misunderstanding and opposition. An illustrious victim in this regard was the Archbishop of Polock and Vitebsk, Josaphat Kuntsevych, whose martyrdom merited the unfading crown of eternal glory. His body now lies in the Vatican Basilica, where it is continuously venerated with devotion and gratitude by Catholics from throughout the world.

The difficulties and trials continued unabated. Pope Pius XII recalled them in the Encyclical Letter Orientales omnes. After describing the earlier persecutions, he predicted the tragic persecution which would take place under the atheistic regime.7

Outstanding among the heroic witnesses to the rights not only of the faith but also of human conscience in those difficult years is the figure of Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj: his courage in enduring exile and prison for 18 years and his indomitable confidence in the resurrection of his Church make him one of the most powerful figures among the confessors of the faith in our time. Nor should his many companions in punishment be forgotten, particularly Bishops Hryhory Khomyshyn and Josaphat Kocylowskyj.

These tempestuous events shook the Church in the homeland to its roots. But Divine Providence had already begun to make it possible for many of its members to find a way of escape for themselves and their people. From the beginning of the 19th century onwards, great waves of emigrants began to cross the ocean, settling above all in Canada, the United States of America, Brazil, Argentina and Australia. The Holy See took care to be close to them, by providing assistance and establishing pastoral structures for them in their new homes, including the establishment of their own Eparchies. At the time of trial, during the atheistic persecution in their native land, the voice of these believers could thus be raised, in full freedom, with strength and courage. In the international forum they defended the right of their persecuted brethren to religious freedom, and thus strengthened the Second Vatican Council's appeal for religious freedom,8 and the efforts made in this regard by the Holy See.

4. The whole Catholic Community recalls with deep emotion the victims of such great suffering: the martyrs and confessors of the faith of the Church in Ukraine offer us a magnificent lesson in fidelity even at the price of life itself. And we, the favoured witnesses of their sacrifice, are aware that they helped to maintain the dignity of a world which seemed overwhelmed by atrocities. They knew the truth, and the truth set them free. Christians in Europe and throughout the world, pausing in prayer before the concentration camps and prisons, should be grateful for the light which they gave: it was the light of Christ, which they caused to shine in the darkness. For long years the darkness seemed in the eyes of the world to prevail, but it was not able to extinguish that light, which was the light of God and the light of man, wounded but not laid low.

This inheritance of suffering and glory today stands at a historic crossroads: now that the chains of imprisonment have been broken, the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine has begun again to breathe in freedom and to regain fully its own active role in the Church and in history. This task, difficult yet providential, today calls for particular reflection, that it may be carried out with wisdom and farsightedness.

As per usual, not a whisper about the emperors dragging the bishops to Lyons and Florence to force them to sign "unions" in exchange for military aid (the Vatican has selective condemnation of Caesaropapism).

Interesting about the reference to the Baptism of Rus': not a reference to the fact that the envoys in the history go to the Latins, and rejected them.

Praising people like Isodore of Kiev, like Kuntsevich, and they wonder why we don't trust them. Not a peep about the forced Latinization in the New World (which, e.g. married priests, continues) and they wonder why we do not trust them. No acknowledgement of the force used to consumate the "union," and they wonder why we do not trust them.

When you get to a point where you can cope with the fact that anti-unionists are no more pleasant and peace lovin' to deal with than unionists the closer to the truth you'll come. There is a record of the anti-unionist activities after Florence in Greece and up through the Balkins and it is not anything I would want to brag about. And that history comes out of secular sources as well as ecclesiastical ones.

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of Orthodoxy is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

They are not questioning the dogma. They are challenging the jurisdictional rights and privileges of the Vatican Curia to interfere in their local jurisdictions and in the lives of those Churches Rome has truly and clearly delineated as Sister Churches during John Paul II's ponitficate.

That sounds like a denial of papal supremacy to me.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum? Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth? Do this with them and see how far you get.

The problem is that actually both you and Irish Hermit are correct. And this results in yet another instance where Eastern sui juris churches don't really respect the dogmatic tradition that they are supposed to be bound to.

Many eastern Catholic priests from all the jurisdictions have gone well out of their way to move against the westernizing tide and reintroduce traditional liturgies during the early-middle and middle centuries of the 20th century. My spiritual father was one of them and it took a good deal of persistence and willingness to struggle with his own brother clergy and with some of his flock as well. So when the man from NZ by gross generalization tells me that Father is just another toadie...I feel compelled to correct.

I suspect that you may have a few licks of purgatorial fire for that untruth. The Irish Hermit NEVER mentioned your Father as one of the lickspittles.

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum? Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth? Do this with them and see how far you get.

The problem is that actually both you and Irish Hermit are correct. And this results in yet another instance where Eastern sui juris churches don't really respect the dogmatic tradition that they are supposed to be bound to.

Many eastern Catholic priests from all the jurisdictions have gone well out of their way to move against the westernizing tide and reintroduce traditional liturgies during the early-middle and middle centuries of the 20th century. My spiritual father was one of them and it took a good deal of persistence and willingness to struggle with his own brother clergy and with some of his flock as well. So when the man from NZ by gross generalization tells me that Father is just another toadie...I feel compelled to correct.

I suspect that you may have a few licks of purgatorial fire for that untruth. The Irish Hermit NEVER mentioned your Father as one of the lickspittles.

Via "gross generalization", as I said quite explicitly, yes, indeed you did...and many many others who do not deserve the same either.

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum? Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth? Do this with them and see how far you get.

The problem is that actually both you and Irish Hermit are correct. And this results in yet another instance where Eastern sui juris churches don't really respect the dogmatic tradition that they are supposed to be bound to.

Many eastern Catholic priests from all the jurisdictions have gone well out of their way to move against the westernizing tide and reintroduce traditional liturgies during the early-middle and middle centuries of the 20th century. My spiritual father was one of them and it took a good deal of persistence and willingness to struggle with his own brother clergy and with some of his flock as well. So when the man from NZ by gross generalization tells me that Father is just another toadie...I feel compelled to correct.

I suspect that you may have a few licks of purgatorial fire for that untruth. The Irish Hermit NEVER mentioned your Father as one of the lickspittles.

Via "gross generalization", as I said quite explicitly, yes, indeed you did...and many many others who do not deserve the same either.

Are you consciously uttering a mistruth about what I wrote - in message 108? Are you bullying me? Or are you trying to create a fight?

I said:

"Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.'

Notice the tense, Mary. It is the past tense. It refers to the period prior to c.1965.

"They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation."

Notice the tense. It is the past tense, and speaks of the time prior to 1965 when they were known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite." This is quite true.

"It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect."

Notice what is said - that this submissiveness continued until Vatican II and was then replaced by a jauntier spirit.

So for you to go on accusing me of attacking your spiritual father is quite misplaced.

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum? Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth? Do this with them and see how far you get.

The problem is that actually both you and Irish Hermit are correct. And this results in yet another instance where Eastern sui juris churches don't really respect the dogmatic tradition that they are supposed to be bound to.

Many eastern Catholic priests from all the jurisdictions have gone well out of their way to move against the westernizing tide and reintroduce traditional liturgies during the early-middle and middle centuries of the 20th century. My spiritual father was one of them and it took a good deal of persistence and willingness to struggle with his own brother clergy and with some of his flock as well. So when the man from NZ by gross generalization tells me that Father is just another toadie...I feel compelled to correct.

I suspect that you may have a few licks of purgatorial fire for that untruth. The Irish Hermit NEVER mentioned your Father as one of the lickspittles.

Via "gross generalization", as I said quite explicitly, yes, indeed you did...and many many others who do not deserve the same either.

Are you consciously uttering a mistruth about what I wrote - in message 108? Are you bullying me? Or are you trying to create a fight?

I said:

"Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.'

Notice the tense, Mary. It is the past tense. It refers to the period prior to c.1965.

"They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation."

Notice the tense. It is the past tense, and speaks of the time prior to 1965 when they were known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite." This is quite true.

"It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect."

Notice what is said - that this submissiveness continued until Vatican II and was then replaced by a jauntier spirit.

So for you to go on accusing me of attacking your spiritual father is quite misplaced.

Who said I was responding to just this note? On this forum you have asserted the submissive lickspittle line over and over again and often with no nuance at all. And now you demand that impute nuance to your messages?...all of them?

When you get to a point where you can cope with the fact that anti-unionists are no more pleasant and peace lovin' to deal with than unionists the closer to the truth you'll come. There is a record of the anti-unionist activities after Florence in Greece and up through the Balkins and it is not anything I would want to brag about. And that history comes out of secular sources as well as ecclesiastical ones.

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of Orthodoxy is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Where extremism rules the can be no justice. There can only be murder and mayhem and the senseless destruction of property and holy artifact. Romanian Greek Catholics come to mind. But certainly not the only examples.

Tit for Tat is a senseless game. Your extremism cannot truly hold the high moral ground no matter what you assert.

When you get to a point where you can cope with the fact that anti-unionists are no more pleasant and peace lovin' to deal with than unionists the closer to the truth you'll come. There is a record of the anti-unionist activities after Florence in Greece and up through the Balkins and it is not anything I would want to brag about. And that history comes out of secular sources as well as ecclesiastical ones.

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of Orthodoxy is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Where extremism rules the can be no justice. There can only be murder and mayhem and the senseless destruction of property and holy artifact. Romanian Greek Catholics come to mind.

They were not only given a finger but an arm, and then the Vatican, as always, wanted the whole side. We have a whole thread on this somewhere.

Quote

But certainly not the only examples.

Tit for Tat is a senseless game.

Not as senseless as demanding tat, and refusing to recognize tit.

Quote

Your extremism cannot truly hold the high moral ground no matter what you assert.

It's been my experience that when someone asserts "I never did that," what he means is "if given an opportunity, I will do it again." One should defend oneself accordingly.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

When you get to a point where you can cope with the fact that anti-unionists are no more pleasant and peace lovin' to deal with than unionists the closer to the truth you'll come. There is a record of the anti-unionist activities after Florence in Greece and up through the Balkins and it is not anything I would want to brag about. And that history comes out of secular sources as well as ecclesiastical ones.

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of Orthodoxy is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Where extremism rules the can be no justice. There can only be murder and mayhem and the senseless destruction of property and holy artifact. Romanian Greek Catholics come to mind.

They were not only given a finger but an arm, and then the Vatican, as always, wanted the whole side. We have a whole thread on this somewhere.

Quote

But certainly not the only examples.

Tit for Tat is a senseless game.

Not as senseless as demanding tat, and refusing to recognize tit.

Quote

Your extremism cannot truly hold the high moral ground no matter what you assert.

It's been my experience that when someone asserts "I never did that," what he means is "if given an opportunity, I will do it again." One should defend oneself accordingly.

You have a particular perspective. I don't expect that to alter, and that is not a criticism. I also know there is another side and it is not just the Vatican wanting a whole side at all...at least that is not how it appears to me.

There's no point in my pot-shotting from the side lines and I do understand what you mean when you say that "I never did that" very often can mean "I will do it again."

When you get to a point where you can cope with the fact that anti-unionists are no more pleasant and peace lovin' to deal with than unionists the closer to the truth you'll come. There is a record of the anti-unionist activities after Florence in Greece and up through the Balkins and it is not anything I would want to brag about. And that history comes out of secular sources as well as ecclesiastical ones.

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of Orthodoxy is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Where extremism rules the can be no justice. There can only be murder and mayhem and the senseless destruction of property and holy artifact. Romanian Greek Catholics come to mind.

They were not only given a finger but an arm, and then the Vatican, as always, wanted the whole side. We have a whole thread on this somewhere.

Quote

But certainly not the only examples.

Tit for Tat is a senseless game.

Not as senseless as demanding tat, and refusing to recognize tit.

Quote

Your extremism cannot truly hold the high moral ground no matter what you assert.

It's been my experience that when someone asserts "I never did that," what he means is "if given an opportunity, I will do it again." One should defend oneself accordingly.

You have a particular perspective. I don't expect that to alter, and that is not a criticism. I also know there is another side and it is not just the Vatican wanting a whole side at all...at least that is not how it appears to me.

Being on the Vatican's side, how else would it appear to you?

Quote

There's no point in my pot-shotting from the side lines and I do understand what you mean when you say that "I never did that" very often can mean "I will do it again."

I also know that it can mean "I never did that."

Indeed. In the case at bar, we know better.

Quote

At any rate keep me in your prayers and I you.

Happy Pentacost!

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

When you get to a point where you can cope with the fact that anti-unionists are no more pleasant and peace lovin' to deal with than unionists the closer to the truth you'll come. There is a record of the anti-unionist activities after Florence in Greece and up through the Balkins and it is not anything I would want to brag about. And that history comes out of secular sources as well as ecclesiastical ones.

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of Orthodoxy is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Where extremism rules the can be no justice. There can only be murder and mayhem and the senseless destruction of property and holy artifact. Romanian Greek Catholics come to mind.

They were not only given a finger but an arm, and then the Vatican, as always, wanted the whole side. We have a whole thread on this somewhere.

Quote

But certainly not the only examples.

Tit for Tat is a senseless game.

Not as senseless as demanding tat, and refusing to recognize tit.

Quote

Your extremism cannot truly hold the high moral ground no matter what you assert.

It's been my experience that when someone asserts "I never did that," what he means is "if given an opportunity, I will do it again." One should defend oneself accordingly.

You have a particular perspective. I don't expect that to alter, and that is not a criticism. I also know there is another side and it is not just the Vatican wanting a whole side at all...at least that is not how it appears to me.

Being on the Vatican's side, how else would it appear to you?

Quote

There's no point in my pot-shotting from the side lines and I do understand what you mean when you say that "I never did that" very often can mean "I will do it again."

I also know that it can mean "I never did that."

Indeed. In the case at bar, we know better.

Quote

At any rate keep me in your prayers and I you.

Happy Pentacost!

And to you.

Just an aside FWIW...I am not listening to the Vatican. I am listening to Romanian Greek Catholics.

When you get to a point where you can cope with the fact that anti-unionists are no more pleasant and peace lovin' to deal with than unionists the closer to the truth you'll come. There is a record of the anti-unionist activities after Florence in Greece and up through the Balkins and it is not anything I would want to brag about. And that history comes out of secular sources as well as ecclesiastical ones.

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of Orthodoxy is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Where extremism rules the can be no justice. There can only be murder and mayhem and the senseless destruction of property and holy artifact. Romanian Greek Catholics come to mind.

They were not only given a finger but an arm, and then the Vatican, as always, wanted the whole side. We have a whole thread on this somewhere.

Quote

But certainly not the only examples.

Tit for Tat is a senseless game.

Not as senseless as demanding tat, and refusing to recognize tit.

Quote

Your extremism cannot truly hold the high moral ground no matter what you assert.

It's been my experience that when someone asserts "I never did that," what he means is "if given an opportunity, I will do it again." One should defend oneself accordingly.

You have a particular perspective. I don't expect that to alter, and that is not a criticism. I also know there is another side and it is not just the Vatican wanting a whole side at all...at least that is not how it appears to me.

Being on the Vatican's side, how else would it appear to you?

Quote

There's no point in my pot-shotting from the side lines and I do understand what you mean when you say that "I never did that" very often can mean "I will do it again."

I also know that it can mean "I never did that."

Indeed. In the case at bar, we know better.

Quote

At any rate keep me in your prayers and I you.

Happy Pentacost!

And to you.

Just an aside FWIW...I am not listening to the Vatican. I am listening to Romanian Greek Catholics.

Acelas. Same thing.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

They are not questioning the dogma. They are challenging the jurisdictional rights and privileges of the Vatican Curia to interfere in their local jurisdictions and in the lives of those Churches Rome has truly and clearly delineated as Sister Churches during John Paul II's ponitficate.

That sounds like a denial of papal supremacy to me.

Mary, would you care to explain?

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him. This is just the way of it! Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?

By the way, the proposed "Articles of Brest" were never signed by the Pope or any official of the Roman Catholic Church.So they are just that "proposed". What created the Ruthenian Catholic Church was an act of submission to the Pope and a declaration signed by the Pope not the "Articles of Brest".

The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region. The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.

So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1. Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river. Kuntsevich had seized all their churches. One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon. By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2. Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace. A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived. He came out out his palace. Someone killed him with a sword. Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.

Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

I expect this is representative of historical Orthodox attitudes.

Which is a great part of the reason that I do not believe the Archbishop was a savage.

Mary

Yeah. And the Orthodox just flocked to the "unions." The fact that the Vatican's anointed kings were swinging the sword of state at them had nothing to do with it.

I am sorry. That is not the entire story at all, and you may be able to convince some but you are not going to convince me at all. I prefer a bit more of an objective reporting of history.

Yes, slant it towards the Vatican. That's objective.

Quote

And it would never cross my mind to squat in the front yard of any Orthodox bishop.

I think that is a fundamental difference in attitude between us.

Mary

No, Ultramontanims is.

There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists. There always will be.

Then there's folks like you. Loud and not particularly something others are always proud of. I've been around long enough to know that. You may get kudos from like-minded people but you don't wear well outside of your own hive.

I don't discount you at all but I am not concerned that your "approach" will prevail.

The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region. The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.

So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1. Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river. Kuntsevich had seized all their churches. One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon. By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2. Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace. A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived. He came out out his palace. Someone killed him with a sword. Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.

Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

I expect this is representative of historical Orthodox attitudes.

Which is a great part of the reason that I do not believe the Archbishop was a savage.

Mary

Yeah. And the Orthodox just flocked to the "unions." The fact that the Vatican's anointed kings were swinging the sword of state at them had nothing to do with it.

I am sorry. That is not the entire story at all, and you may be able to convince some but you are not going to convince me at all. I prefer a bit more of an objective reporting of history.

Yes, slant it towards the Vatican. That's objective.

Quote

And it would never cross my mind to squat in the front yard of any Orthodox bishop.

I think that is a fundamental difference in attitude between us.

Mary

No, Ultramontanims is.

There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists. There always will be.

Then there's folks like you. Loud and not particularly something others are always proud of. I've been around long enough to know that. You may get kudos from like-minded people but you don't wear well outside of your own hive.

I don't discount you at all but I am not concerned that your "approach" will prevail.

M.

Ialmisery, what is this icon? Can you interpret it?

St. Mark of Ephesus standing on the "Roman pope," who is combined with some imagery of the beast in Revelation.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I am surpirsed that no one has compared this discussion of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich to Russian orthodox plans to canonize the martyr Fr. Gabriel Kostelnyk:

Quote

The initiator of elimination of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church could be canonizedInterfax ^ | September 23, 2008 Posted on 27 September 2008 12:46:19 by PetrosiusKiev, September 23, Interfax - The Ukrainian Orthodox Church leaves open the possibility to canonize the priest Gabriel Kostelnik who was the initiator of the elimination of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church and the unification of Uniates and Orthodox.

The Church has already begun to work at appropriate documents, Archbishop Augustine of Lvov and Galicia said, cited by Religious Information Service of Ukraine.

"According to our procedure of canonization, a martyr really had to suffer for Christ or for the Church, but not to die by chance. Moreover he shouldn't be a heretic or a schismatic. As for the pious, the Reverend Fathers, there should be the sanctity of life and authority. Kostelnik is somewhere in between a martyr and a pious", the Archbishop said during the press conference in Lvov.

He noticed that the main task today is to explain some Father Gabriel's complex teological formulas, his positions on a set of questions. According to Archbishop Augustine, the process of canonization will last at least a year.

"First it is necessary to study all details and to suggest his figure for the Commission on Canonization and for the Holy Synod", the hierarch explained.

Lvov Diocese of the Ukraine Orthodox Church celebrated on September, 19-20, 60th anniversary of the death of Father Gabriel.

Fr. Gabriel (first the priest of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, then - of the Russian Orthodox Church) came to Orthodoxy since 1920's, when the NKVD destroyed the Church. He was the ideological heir of Galician-Russian confessors of Orthodoxy who were killed at concentration camps before the First World War.

Fr. Gabriel became also the organizer of the Lvov Council in 1946, where it was decided to abolish the decisions of the Uniate Brest Council in 1596, to "break with the Vatican and to return to the native Orthodox faith".

In July 1948, Fr. Gabriel took an active part in the celebrations in Moscow on the occasion of 500th anniversary of the autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church. On September 20, 1948, after liturgy in the Transfiguration Cathedral in Lvov, he was killed by two shots from a handgun on the way home. The murderer was surrounded by a crowd of believers and shot himself. He was a member of a terrorist group, led by Roman Shukhevich, chief of the Ukrainian Rebel Army (UPA).

The Encyclopedia of Ukraine published by the University of Toronto gives the best objective analysis of the life of Fr. Gabriel.

Kostelnyk, Havryil [Kostel’nyk, Havryjil],

b 1886 in Ruski Krstur, Bačka region, Serbia, d 20 September 1948 in Lviv. Priest, writer, journalist, philosopher, and theologian. He studied philosophy and theology at Zagreb University, Lviv University, and Fribourg University (PH D 1913). Ordained in 1913, after the First World War he moved to Lviv, where he was a professor of theology and philosophy at the Greek Catholic Theological Seminary in Lviv (1920–8) and the Greek Catholic Theological Academy (1928–30). He also edited the religious journal Nyva (1922–32). In the late 1920s, Kostelnyk emerged as a critic of the Vatican's Uniate policy and the leading representative of the ‘Eastern’ (anti-Latinization) orientation among the Greek Catholic clergy. His position made him a target of NKVD pressure and blackmail during the 1939–41 Soviet occupation of Galicia, when the authorities tried unsuccessfully to have Kostelnyk organize an ‘away from Rome’ schism in the Ukrainian Catholic church. After the Soviets reoccupied Galicia in 1944 and arrested the entire Ukrainian Catholic episcopate, Kostelnyk was finally compelled by the authorities to assume chairmanship of the so-called Initiating Committee for the Reunification of the Greek Catholic Church with the Russian Orthodox Church. In this capacity, Kostelnyk presided over the Soviet-staged ‘Reunion Sobor’ in Lviv in March 1946 (see Lviv Sobor of 1946), designed to supply the pseudo-canonic, voluntary façade to the Soviet suppression of the Ukrainian Catholic church. He was killed under mysterious circumstances; while Soviet authorities have blamed his murder on the Vatican and Ukrainian nationalists, the evidence suggests that the assassination was masterminded by the Soviet police. Kostelnyk's early poetry and prose were written in his native dialect, and he is considered the creator of the Bačka literary language. His first literary work, Z moioho valala (From My Village), appeared in 1904, and in 1923 he published Hramatyka bachvan’sko-ruskei besedy (Grammar of the Bačka Ruthenian Language), the first work of its kind. His collected works in the Bačka dialect were published in two volumes in Novi Sad (1970, 1975). Later he began to write prose and poetry in Ukrainian. His scholarly works include Try rozpravy pro piznannia (Three Tracts on Understanding, 1925), Spir pro epiklezu mizh Skhodom i Zakhodom (The Disagreement about Epiclesis between East and West, 1928), and articles in the journals Nyva and Bohosloviia. Prof. B.R. Bociurkiw University of Ottawa

That's not an icon, it's an ecclesiopolitical propaganda piece. The item run through with the sword is supposed to be a Gospel book. A shameful debasement of iconography.

At first, I thought it was being presented as an Orthodox icon?

Not every picture painted in an abstracted, geometric style containing haloes and a Greek or Slavonic inscription is an Orthodox icon, whether painted by someone who is Orthodox or not Orthodox. You'll find food for thought here:

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him. This is just the way of it! Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?

By the way, the proposed "Articles of Brest" were never signed by the Pope or any official of the Roman Catholic Church.So they are just that "proposed". What created the Ruthenian Catholic Church was an act of submission to the Pope and a declaration signed by the Pope not the "Articles of Brest".

That is right Stanley 1: there is no proof that the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church ever accepted the Articles of Brest. They were just suggested by the bishops meeting in brest and rejected.By the way the vast majority of people in the area both clergy & laity rejected any union with Pope and the churches just continued as Orthodox churches without the bishops who rejected Orthodoxy. In 1620 new bishops were consecrated to replace the traitor bishops and in addition to to the bishops who remained loyal to Orthodoxy. Perhaps a new thread should be started dealing only with the failed attempt at union at the city of Brest.

In the final analysis, Josaphat's terror tactics were no more successful than those of other deranged despots. For his crimes against humanity, this most virulent apostate and pervert was beaten and stoned to death by outraged believers and dispatched to his just reward in 1623. His inhumane brutality earned him even the disdain of the Roman Catholic Chancellor of Lithuanian. Moreover, Orthodox believers never really accepted the Unia or Josaphat's fellow apostate Bishops, who, despite their cowardly efforts to win such recognition, were also never accorded the political rights of their Latin counterparts. In the end, millions of Orthodox returned to the Faith when border changes occurred in the nineteenth century, just as many Greek Catholics in America later embraced Orthodoxy with the help of the New Martyr Tikhon, then Administrator of the Russian Churches in the New World.

Was Irene's excellent idea "dealing only with the failed attempt at union at the city of Brest" ever taken up?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth